Re: Nikon IV or Cannon FS4000

["Dave King" <kingphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>

> Jerry Olson wrote:
>
> > Art, if the polaroid lens is not as sharp as the canon, that would be
> > the reason the main subject, the brick wall wasn't as sharp as the canon
> > lens in the canon scanner. THe image was a brick wall cross lit by the
> > sun, a VERY sharp situation for showing what a good lens can do.
> >
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> A poor lens would also show poor grain resolution. Is the brick wall in
> a different location than the sky (like the sky is at the top and the
> brick wall at the bottom of a vertical image?)  If this were so, perhaps
> the film carrier was angled in some manner and focus was varied by this.
>   Did you try reversing the film orientation and seeing it that had any
> effect?
>
> I really don't know what else to say. If your results were typical,
> everyone would be running out to buy Canon FS2710 units at less than
> half the price of these 4000 dpi scanners.
>
> I can't directly compare the FS 2710 with the SS4000+, BUT, I am in
> correspondence with someone who has both the FS-2710 and the Minolta
> Dual II.  And I have the Minolta Dual II and the SS4000+.
>
> The person who has the Canon and the Minolta has sent me samples.  The
> Canon has considerably nosier shadows (with green noise) than the
> Minolta.  The Minolta is also sharper, but it suffers from grain (and
> other spots) aliasing (it is both actually sharper and it is
> perceptually much sharper due to the aliasing - in fact you might like
> it) ;-)  The Minolta with the slow exposure in Vuescan really cleans up
> the shadows.  As of the last time I heard, this feature is less
> effective with the Canon.
>
> Now, I have the Minolta Dual II and the SS4000+, as I stated, and the
> SS4000+ blows the Minolta out of the water for both "real" sharpness and
> for shadow detail.  It is also faster to use, and I prefer the software
> to the Minolta.  Having not used the Canon's software, I can't comment
> on it.
>
> We are going to have to agree to disagree in this matter, because we
> each have our own experiences.  I would ultimately be interested if you
> are able to find a scanner sharper than the Canon FS-2710, using your
> criterion.
>
> Art

I think Kennedy has it - most likely Jerry's seeing magnification effects.

Jerry - upsample the Canon scan to 4000 dpi and see if it's still sharper.

Dave


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.